RESUMEN
[Objective]To explore the evaluation value of ultrasomics based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)imaging in the therapy response of microRNA-122(miR-122)in hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC).[Method]Mice bearing subcutaneous HCC xenografts were injected intratumorally with microRNA-122 mimics(miR-122 mimics) and negative control mimics(NC mimics)in treatment group(n=6)and control group(n=6),respectively. The injec-tions were performed every 3 days for five times.Before each injection,two-dimension ultrasound(2D-US)imaging was performed.At 24 h after the last injection,2D-US and CEUS images of tumors were acquired,and then mice scarified for tumor miR-122 expression analysis by qRT-PCR.To evaluate the therapy response by RECIST,tumor volumes were mea-sured based on each 2D-US image. To analyze the tumor perfusion by mRECIST,perfusion parameters(maximum of intensity,rise time,time to peak,mean transit time,quality of fit)were analyzed off-line based on dynamic CEUS videos using SonoLiver?software. For ultrasomics,CEUS images at 10,30,60,90 second were used for features extraction, respectively. The corresponding ultrasomics formulas were built to evaluate the therapy response for miR-122.[Result]The tumors treated with miR-122 mimics resulted in a(763±60)folds increase in miR-122 levels compared to the tumors in control group(P<0.05).Effectively therapeutic response evaluated by tumor sizes change was detected after the third injection(P<0.05).For assessment using mRECIST,all the parameters of treatment group did not show significant difference from the ones of control group(P>0.05).Analysis using ultrasomics fail to detect different features of the static images of CEUS at 10 s,and models can be successfully built based on the rest of the three phases of CEUS images.The ultrasomics Scores between control group and treatment group were statistically different(P<0.05).The ultrasomics score at 30s were significantly lower than those at 60 s and 90 s,while there was no statistical difference between scores at 60 s and 90 s.[Conclusion]Ultrasomics analysis based on CEUS imaging is a useful method in evaluating the therapy response of miR-122 in HCC,and showed greater value than dynamic perfusion parameter.
RESUMEN
Tumor microenvironment (TME) is comprised of cellular and non-cellular components that exist within and around the tumor mass. The TME is highly dynamic and its importance in different stages of cancer progression has been well recognized. A growing body of evidence suggests that TME also plays pivotal roles in cancer treatment responses. TME is significantly remodeled upon cancer therapies, and such change either enhances the responses or induces drug resistance. Given the importance of TME in tumor progression and therapy resistance, strategies that remodel TME to improve therapeutic responses are under developing. In this review, we provide an overview of the essential components in TME and the remodeling of TME in response to anti-cancer treatments. We also summarize the strategies that aim to enhance therapeutic efficacy by modulating TME.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Antineoplásicos , Farmacología , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Neoplasias , Quimioterapia , Patología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Microambiente Tumoral , FisiologíaRESUMEN
In this paper, the authors intended to summarize briefly the features of lymphoma with regard to (18)F-FDG PET for assessment of tumor response to therapy, to describe why assessment of treatment response should be performed, to review what method so far has been used in monitoring treatment response, to discuss what limitations of morphologic imaging criteria for assessing tumor response are, in compared with (18)F-FDG PET, and to introduce recently proposed criteria for assessing tumor response in malignant lymphoma. And also the authors emphasize the need to understand the characteristics of diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG PET in several clinical settings in order to interpret (18)F-FDG PET results appropriately, and to encourage the use of interval likelihood ratio to enhance clinical implications of test results which, in turns, allows referring physicians to understand the meaning of interpretation with easy. Until recently, treatment response has been assessed according to the morphologic criteria. Metabolic imaging with (18)F-FDG PET was adopted to have important role for treatment assessment in IWC+PET criteria proposed recently by IHP. To accomplish this role, we should perform and interpret (18)F-FDG PET according to IWC+PET criteria. It is important for referring physicians to understand the various limitations of (18)F-FDG PET and pitfalls in PET interpretation, and to understand that clinical information are needed by nuclear medicine physicians to optimize the interpretation of (18)F-FDG PET.